State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Haryana Urban Development Authority, ... vs Shamsher Singh Malik Son Of Ram Chander, ... on 24 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.147 of 2005 Date of Institution: 31.01.2005 Date of Decision: 24.01.2012 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat through its Estate Officer. Appellant (OP) Versus Shamsher Singh Malik son of Ram Chander, Resident of Gohana District Sonepat. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Jaimini Twari, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sidharth Sharma, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby following direction has been issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
.the present complaint stands accepted, as the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Thus, the respondent is directed to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant and further directed to give two years time for the construction of the house to the complainant after the delivery of actual physical possession of the plot in question and this two years time will start from the day, the actual physical possession of the plot will be delivered to the complainant. The respondent is further directed to provide all the basic amenities to the complainant and to develop the area in question around the plot of the complainant. The respondent is further directed to pay interest-compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount lying deposited with the respondent and paid by the complainant to the respondent, from the date of allotment of the plot in favour of the complainant till the actual physical possession of the plot is delivered to the complainant. The respondent is further directed not to charge any interest upon the due instalments from the complainant. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.Three lacs only for escalation charges and rise in prices of the building material and labour charges etc etc. The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.Five thousands only for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and further to pay rupees two thousands under the litigation expenses. Since the complainant has been able to prove that he has to reside alongwith his family in a rented house and has to pay unnecessarily Rs.1600/- per month as a rent to the landlord due to non-delivery of actual physical possession of the plot by the respondents, the respondent is further directed to pay rupees one thousand six hundred only from October-2001 till the actual physical possession of the plot in question is delivered to the complainant, as the complainant has to reside alongwith his family in a rented house and this fact has been duly proved from the rent receipt placed on record by the complainant. in this case, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and this Forum also finds the respondent deficient in their service. Accordingly, the present complaint stands accepted and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat, is directed to make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of this order.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the appellant-opposite party failed to deliver the actual physical possession of plot No.891, measuring 375 Sq. yards, Sector-7, Gohana which was allotted to him vide allotment letter bearing memo No.19685 dated 30.08.2001, despite the fact that he was depositing the instalments in respect of the price of the plot. Complainant further alleged that due to non-delivery of the possession of the plot, he failed to raise construction on the plot and thus suffered huge financial loss on account of escalation in the cost of construction.
Complainants claim was resisted by the opposite party with the plea that the offer of possession of the plot was made to the complainant on 11.12.2001 and the physical possession was delivered by the complainant on 28.12.2001 vide memo No.1710. It was further stated that the building plans were sanctioned vide memo No.11673 dated 07.06.2002. It was noticed that the plot was of 258.8 sq. yards instead of 375 sq. yards and after receipt of representation from the complainant, letters were written to the District Town Planner and XEN, HUDA Division, Sonepat in this regard. Thus, the opposite party denied any kind of deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the complainant was offered the possession of the plot vide letter bearing Memo No.13225 dated 29.09.2003 but the complainant himself had not come forward to take the possession. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant referred to the aforesaid letter dated 29.09.2003, Annexure A-1 on the file. Certificate issued by Shri D.K. Malik, J.E. HUDA, Sonepat is reproduced as under:-
Sub:- Regarding physical possession of Plot No.891-P, Sector-7, Gohana.
On dated 25/8/2003 in the presence of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division, Sonepat, District Town, Planner, Sonepat, S.D.E. Sub Division No.2, Sonepat and Sh. Shamsher Singh the allottee of Plot No.891-P, Sector-7, Gohana it was decided to give the Nishan to the allottee as per approved demarcation plan and I went with the allottee for giving Nishan at site but he refused to take Nishan at site on dated 25/8/2003. It is for your kind information and necessary action please.
Sd/-
Dated: 22/9/2003 (D.K. Malik) J.E. HUDA, Sonepat In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced on the record, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-complainant that notice was served upon the opposite party for not delivering the actual physical possession of the plot, is hardly significant. The authenticity of the Annexure A-1 and the certificate issued by J.E. HUDA in this regard cannot be discarded. Thus, it is fully established on the record that the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant but he himself did not take the possession. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. Hence the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 24.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member Appellant (OP) Versus Shamsher Singh Malik son of Ram Chander, Resident of Gohana District Sonepat.
Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE:
Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
For the Parties: Ms. Jaimini Twari, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sidharth Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby following direction has been issued to the appellant-opposite party:-
.the present complaint stands accepted, as the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Thus, the respondent is directed to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant and further directed to give two years time for the construction of the house to the complainant after the delivery of actual physical possession of the plot in question and this two years time will start from the day, the actual physical possession of the plot will be delivered to the complainant. The respondent is further directed to provide all the basic amenities to the complainant and to develop the area in question around the plot of the complainant. The respondent is further directed to pay interest-compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount lying deposited with the respondent and paid by the complainant to the respondent, from the date of allotment of the plot in favour of the complainant till the actual physical possession of the plot is delivered to the complainant. The respondent is further directed not to charge any interest upon the due instalments from the complainant. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.Three lacs only for escalation charges and rise in prices of the building material and labour charges etc etc. The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.Five thousands only for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and further to pay rupees two thousands under the litigation expenses. Since the complainant has been able to prove that he has to reside alongwith his family in a rented house and has to pay unnecessarily Rs.1600/- per month as a rent to the landlord due to non-delivery of actual physical possession of the plot by the respondents, the respondent is further directed to pay rupees one thousand six hundred only from October-2001 till the actual physical possession of the plot in question is delivered to the complainant, as the complainant has to reside alongwith his family in a rented house and this fact has been duly proved from the rent receipt placed on record by the complainant. in this case, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and this Forum also finds the respondent deficient in their service. Accordingly, the present complaint stands accepted and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat, is directed to make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of this order.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the appellant-opposite party failed to deliver the actual physical possession of plot No.891, measuring 375 Sq. yards, Sector-7, Gohana which was allotted to him vide allotment letter bearing memo No.19685 dated 30.08.2001, despite the fact that he was depositing the instalments in respect of the price of the plot. Complainant further alleged that due to non-delivery of the possession of the plot, he failed to raise construction on the plot and thus suffered huge financial loss on account of escalation in the cost of construction.
Complainants claim was resisted by the opposite party with the plea that the offer of possession of the plot was made to the complainant on 11.12.2001 and the physical possession was delivered by the complainant on 28.12.2001 vide memo No.1710. It was further stated that the building plans were sanctioned vide memo No.11673 dated 07.06.2002. It was noticed that the plot was of 258.8 sq. yards instead of 375 sq. yards and after receipt of representation from the complainant, letters were written to the District Town Planner and XEN, HUDA Division, Sonepat in this regard. Thus, the opposite party denied any kind of deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the complainant was offered the possession of the plot vide letter bearing Memo No.13225 dated 29.09.2003 but the complainant himself had not come forward to take the possession. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant referred to the aforesaid letter dated 29.09.2003, Annexure A-1 on the file. Certificate issued by Shri D.K. Malik, J.E. HUDA, Sonepat is reproduced as under:-
Sub:- Regarding physical possession of Plot No.891-P, Sector-7, Gohana.
On dated 25/8/2003 in the presence of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division, Sonepat, District Town, Planner, Sonepat, S.D.E. Sub Division No.2, Sonepat and Sh. Shamsher Singh the allottee of Plot No.891-P, Sector-7, Gohana it was decided to give the Nishan to the allottee as per approved demarcation plan and I went with the allottee for giving Nishan at site but he refused to take Nishan at site on dated 25/8/2003. It is for your kind information and necessary action please.
Sd/-
Dated: 22/9/2003 (D.K. Malik) J.E. HUDA, Sonepat In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced on the record, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-complainant that notice was served upon the opposite party for not delivering the actual physical possession of the plot, is hardly significant. The authenticity of the Annexure A-1 and the certificate issued by J.E. HUDA in this regard cannot be discarded. Thus, it is fully established on the record that the possession of the plot was offered to the complainant but he himself did not take the possession. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case. Hence the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 24.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member